Review Reports - Resilience Measurement and Enhancement Strategies for Meizhou Bay Port Enterprises

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled "Resilience Measurement and Enhancement Strategies for Meizhou Bay Port Enterprises" aims to address the underexplored area of resilience in port enterprises. The study introduces a novel framework to clarify the concept of port resilience and systematically measures the resilience of Meizhou Bay Port with the goal of promoting its healthy and sustainable development. The research constructs three primary dimensions—absorptive capacity, adaptive capacity, and recovery capacity—alongside twelve secondary indicators, utilizing the entropy weight-TOPSIS method for a comprehensive resilience assessment. The findings reveal a decline in Meizhou Bay Port's resilience from 0.42766 in 2018 to 0.34013 in 2022, indicating a low level of resilience that requires targeted enhancement measures. Specifically, absorptive capacity experienced the most significant decline at the onset of the pandemic before stabilizing, adaptive capacity saw the greatest overall decrease, falling below absorptive capacity by 2022, and recovery capacity remained the most stable. These insights highlight the need for improving absorptive and adaptive capacities to mitigate vulnerabilities and enhance daily port operations.

The abstract provides a clear overview of the study but can be improved by emphasizing the novelty and contributions of the research. For instance, it can be revised to explicitly state the innovative aspects of the framework introduced and the implications of the findings for the sustainable development of port enterprises. The paper should also provide a detailed explanation of how the twelve secondary indicators were selected. This justification is crucial for validating the comprehensiveness and relevance of the chosen criteria. A clear rationale should discuss the relevance of each indicator in the context of port resilience, supported by literature or empirical evidence.

Additionally, the background section should be expanded to include a discussion on various Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods such as SPOTIS, COMET, and DARIA-TOPSIS. This will provide readers with a broader understanding of available methodologies and set the stage for why TOPSIS was chosen. The choice of the TOPSIS method needs a stronger justification, elaborating on its advantages, particularly in handling the specific characteristics of resilience measurement in port enterprises. Comparing TOPSIS with other potential methods would further highlight its suitability and effectiveness.

To strengthen the robustness of the research, it is recommended to extend the study by comparing the results obtained using the entropy weight-TOPSIS method with those from other weighting methods, such as RANCOM. This comparative analysis will provide insights into the consistency and reliability of the findings and demonstrate the effectiveness of the chosen approach. Furthermore, the paper should ensure clarity and consistency in defining key terms and concepts related to resilience and port operations. Visual aids such as graphs and tables summarizing the results and comparisons would enhance the readability and comprehensibility of the findings. A brief discussion on the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research would also be beneficial.

In my opinion, the paper presents an important study on the resilience measurement of port enterprises, with a specific focus on Meizhou Bay Port. By addressing the above comments, the authors can enhance the clarity, depth, and impact of their research, making it a more valuable contribution to the field of sustainability and port management.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None

Author Response

Commengts 1:The abstract provides a clear overview of the study but can be improved by emphasizing the novelty and contributions of the research. For instance, it can be revised to explicitly state the innovative aspects of the framework introduced and the implications of the findings for the sustainable development of port enterprises. The paper should also provide a detailed explanation of how the twelve secondary indicators were selected. This justification is crucial for validating the comprehensiveness and relevance of the chosen criteria. A clear rationale should discuss the relevance of each indicator in the context of port resilience, supported by literature or empirical evidence.

Thangk you for pointing this out. We agree with this commeng.Supplement the abstract, see the new manuscript 12-17 lines; The selection of 12 indicators is explained in Chapter 3.1 of the manuscript.

Commengts 2: The background section should be expanded to include a discussion on various Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods such as SPOTIS, COMET, and DARIA-TOPSIS. This will provide readers with a broader understanding of available methodologies and set the stage for why TOPSIS was chosen. The choice of the TOPSIS method needs a stronger justification, elaborating on its advantages, particularly in handling the specific characteristics of resilience measurement in port enterprises. Comparing TOPSIS with other potential methods would further highlight its suitability and effectiveness.

Thangk you for pointing this out. We agree with this commeng. The selection of entropy weight -TOPSIS method is explained in detail in the introduction, specifically in lines 52 to 76 of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for the valuable review opportunity provided by the journal. Thank you! The paper analyzes Resilience Measurement and Enhancement Strategies for Meizhou Bay Port Enterprises. In the current critical period of achieving high-quality development in China's economy, exploring the resilience of port economy is a very interesting topic. I personally believe that there are still several shortcomings in the paper, and after careful revision, it can meet the publication standards. The specific details are as follows:

Firstly, there is too little introduction in the introduction section, and the author should focus on the relationship between port resilience and economic development for discussion.

The second is the construction of the port resilience indicator system. The author's use of all positive indicators cannot fully reflect the essence of port resilience, and it is necessary to add appropriate negative indicators for explanation.

Thirdly, based on the calculation of the resilience of Meizhou Bay Port, the paper lacks more in-depth empirical analysis, especially empirical analysis. It is suggested that the author increase the analysis of the influencing factors of port resilience, in order to lay a foundation for how to improve the resilience of Meizhou Bay Port. I suggest adding more chart analysis to further enrich the research content.

Finally, the language of the paper needs to be appropriately polished to increase readability.

I hope the author can carefully revise my review comments on the paper and strive to publish it as soon as possible.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Commengts 1: There is too little introduction in the introduction section, and the author should focus on the relationship between port resilience and economic development for discussion..

Thangk you for pointing this out. We agree with this commeng.The introduction will be supplemented and the importance of ports to the economy will be detailed

Commengts 2: The second is the construction of the port resilience indicator system. The author's use of all positive indicators cannot fully reflect the essence of port resilience, and it is necessary to add appropriate negative indicators for explanation.

Thangk you for pointing this out. We agree with this commeng. The positive and negative indicators are marked, as shown in Table 1.

Commengts 3: Thirdly, based on the calculation of the resilience of Meizhou Bay Port, the paper lacks more in-depth empirical analysis, especially empirical analysis. It is suggested that the author increase the analysis of the influencing factors of port resilience, in order to lay a foundation for how to improve the resilience of Meizhou Bay Port. I suggest adding more chart analysis to further enrich the research content.

Thangk you for pointing this out. We agree with this commeng. This paper strengthened the analysis of factors affecting port resilience, and added corresponding charts to illustrate it. For details, see the manuscript 4. Results and analyses of resilience measures

Thangk you for pointing this out. We agree with this commeng. The positive and negative indicators are marked, as shown in Table 1.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has carefully revised the paper based on the review comments, and I believe that the paper has met the publication requirements of the journal!